I am a 16-year-old female. I have been in a monogamous relationship with a boy for seven months. My first, his too. A couple of months in, we began to explore masturbating each other and oral sex. He has gone down on me three times, but I have never given him a blowjob. I’m scared to because I’m scared he will be disappointed. We fight sometimes because he feels it’s unfair that he goes down on me and I don’t go down on him.
On top of this, he started doing something when we are in the midst of being sexual that I don’t understand. He will stick the tip of his hard penis just inside the opening to my vagina, again and again. I guess you could call it “probing.” I know enough to know that there’s a slight risk of pregnancy, as pre-come can get a woman pregnant and he doesn’t wear a condom when he does this. We are planning on having complete vaginal intercourse in the next few months, with condoms and birth control, but this is happening now and it worries me.
This is what I need advice about: I know that there is a very small risk of pregnancy even if we use condoms and birth control. I couldn’t handle a child at my age or the humiliation of being pregnant at 16 and having to walk around town with the evidence out for all to see. I would have an abortion. He disagrees strongly with abortion, but he’s not the one who would have to go through it all! So I would probably end up having an abortion without telling him, which seems completely unfair.
No Clue What To Do
I’m going to take your problems one at a time, NCWTD, in ascending order of importance/assholery.
1. A disappointing blowjob is always less disappointing than no blowjob at all, NCWTD, particularly for teenage boys. So it’s always better to err on the side of blowjobs.
Yes, you’ll probably be pretty inept at first. Take things slowly and only take him as far into your mouth as you feel comfortable with. (Feel free to wrap a fist or two around the base of his cock so you can control how fast and far his dick goes into your mouth.) Don’t let your boyfriend rush or guilt you into blowing him until he comes by pointing to all the times—all the three times!—that he went down on you. Sucking cock is physically trickier and more taxing than eating pussy. That may seem crazy unfair—hasa diga eebowai—but on the bright side, it frees you from having to get him off with your mouth the first few dozen times you attempt to blow him.
2. Probing is low-risk for pregnancy, NCWTD, but there’s still some risk. What worries me is that this activity makes you uncomfortable and either you haven’t said anything to your boyfriend or you have said something and he’s doing it anyway. Tell him no more probing, if you haven’t already, and if he initiates probing after you’ve made it clear that you’re not comfortable with it, break the fuck up with him. Which brings us to…
3. You’re going to have to go Bitch Puddin’ on his ass, NCWTD. Memorize this, say it to him, and mean it: “If I let you stick your dick in my vagina and I get pregnant, I am getting an abortion. If you can’t live with that—if you aren’t willing to shoulder the psychic risk of knowing that your girlfriend would get or actually got an abortion, while she shoulders the actual physical risk of an unplanned pregnancy—then I am never going to let you stick your dick in my vagina. You’re free to disagree with my choice, of course, but you can’t prevent me from making that choice. So what’s it going to be?”
I’m a 25-year-old gay male with a foot fetish. I have a wonderful boyfriend who lets me indulge by rubbing his feet. When I brought him home to meet the folks, at one point he took his shoes off and casually rested his feet in my lap while sitting in the living room with my parents. I felt really weird about rubbing his feet with my parents looking on. My boyfriend thinks I shouldn’t worry because my parents don’t know about my kink and a foot rub looks innocent enough. Am I right to feel weird about this?
Bear Foot Fetishist
Let’s say your parents ran across shitloads of gay foot fetish porn on your computer when you were still a teenager. Are your mom and dad the kind of open-minded, sexually progressive parents who would ruin your sex life forever by initiating a mortifying conversation about what they found? Or are they the kind of closed-minded, sexually inhibited parents who would do the right thing and never, ever mention what they found? Hopefully the latter.
So it’s entirely possible that your parents do know about your kink, BFF, and that they were deeply weirded out when your new boyfriend went out of his way to give you a boner while they were sitting there. For all you know, your parents are at home right now questioning your judgment and wondering how they can get out of inviting your boyfriend for Thanksgiving without seeming like homophobes.
And speaking of questionable judgment: I’ve watched a lot of hot boys from small towns wash up in my urban hellhole over the years. These boys typically leverage their good looks to get jobs making coffee/burritos/drinks/whatever, and then, over the course of a year or two, throw their good looks away with the assistance of booze, cigarettes, tattoo artists, and professional piercers. I get it: Nothing stays the same, all things die, and these guys aren’t trying to earn social or sexual currency with the old fags in the hood.
But there’s this one waiter/barista/bartender/whatever who works in a place near my office—I’m not going to say exactly what he does—who, having already gone in for full tattoo sleeves on both arms, recently stuck a pair of plugs in his earlobes. His plugs are moderately sized, but I worry that they’re going to get bigger and bigger until this boy—who’s just so damn lovely—turns his earlobes into
earlabia. (That’s what they look like when people walk around without the plugs in.)
They’re not my ears, I realize, and this boy, like all the other hipster boys, can do what he likes with his own earlobes. But earlabia don’t look good on anybody. Please make a note of it, hipster boys.
I’m a 20-year-old female girl. I’m sure you’ve addressed this qualm many times: I’m wondering if it’s bad that I use porn to masturbate. I can pleasure myself without porn, but I enjoy it more when I do. I feel bad after I do it. Is it bad? Should I stop?
Worried Porn Girl
Not bad, WPG, don’t stop.
You should, however, be a conscientious female girl porn consumer. Superstar sex writer Violet Blue does an amazing job covering and uncovering porn that’s nonexploitative and female-girl-positive/female-girl-created, WPG, and reading Violet will help cure you of that niggling case of postorgasmic porn shame you’ve got. (For the record: Straight porn created by and for men can be female-girl-positive, too.) Read Violet at www.tinynibbles.com.
Website of the Week: www.gayhomophobe.com.
Find the Savage Lovecast (my weekly podcast) every Tuesday at thestranger.com/savage.
@275: mydriasis: Are you male?
@275: It’s about as arbitrary as saying I can do whatever I want to my body, but not to yours, even if your body is only a millimeter away from mine. You control what’s inside your body. Not what’s outside it. I do think that’s a clear black and white line, yes.
@Autie: what do you think?
@Blackrose: You think that’s the same? Ok. So if a women is in labour and 1 millisecond away from giving birth to a living breathing “baby” but because it’s still a fetus she could in theory end the life of that “fetus” somehow if she wanted and it would be as inconsequential as pulling a tooth because it is still “her body”.
@278: Yes, of course. The alternative would be saying a woman doesn’t have the right to control her own body.
I think what’s troubling you is that we currently consider killing a newborn to be a horrible crime deserving of life imprisonment. This doesn’t make sense, because the end result is basically the same as if the woman had had an abortion instead. I think the inconsistency is on that end: killing an unwanted newborn is not as bad as killing an actual developed person.
No, that’s not the alternative. You’re seeing it too simplistically.
Like I said, I believe the scenarios you suggested should be “a right” but not that they “are right” and there’s absolutely a difference. The law needs arbitrary lines, reality and ethics are more nuanced. The law says age of consent happens at the stroke of midnight on a certain day, but certainly a person isn’t a horribly unethical monster at 11:59 and a normal well-adjusted individual at 12:00 AM. Or do you believe that too, because the “alternative” is to do away with age-of-consent completely.
I think infanticide is absolutely wrong.
But for the record, I’m talking about the context of where I live, where there’s no access problem whatsoever and no religious nutjobs trying to repeal these rights.
So again… you think infanticide is not a lesser-of-two evils? It’s a non-evil?
The current 24-week delineation does a pretty effective job of taking into account the biological situation.
That is a much better line than birth, in my opinion.
But it is, again, arbitrary. We need to impose arbitrary lines to make laws about things like this, but I think any rational person knows that no magical thing happens at 23 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 59 seconds.
@271 and @273 I appreciate the understanding. And while I wouldn’t really have an issue trying to talk it out on here, I have no idea where to start! So who knows maybe some column will have something relevant to my situation soon, and it’ll all come out in one long sordid sob story. 🙂
@280: You make a good point that we should distinguish between what is legal and what is ethical.
As far as ethics, I do think that people have the ethical right to control their own body. In other words, it’s always ethical to do what you want with your own body. So I don’t think abortion is ever wrong under any circumstance.
Where do you live that has no religious nutjobs? Again, I am really not understanding your anti-abortion argument if it’s not a religious one.
As I said, I don’t know about infanticide. It’s a tricky issue. It doesn’t personally bother me emotionally, but in the abstract, it might indeed be a lesser-of-two-evils. It’s definitely much better than killing a 3 year old, say.
@281: The 24-week line is only the “current delineation” in some US states. Others have earlier or later lines, and some states have no abortion restrictions at all. I think most other countries have earlier lines as well.
@282: Why do you think 24 weeks is a better line than birth? Can you see my point that birth isn’t as arbitrary because that’s the point where a baby is no longer inside another person, and so the issue of controlling your own body isn’t in play anymore?
I agree that it isn’t as arbitrary, but it still is arbitrary, as you hinted at but won’t admit.
The fact of the matter is, the idea that a human being is not a human being, but simply a component of your body one milisecond and a full-fledged human being worthy of rights another second isn’t biologically true, or ethically true in my mind. You seem to think that a baby isn’t a full-fledged human being the moment they’re born, so at least there’s consistency there. Basically, you’re agreeing with me that personhood isn’t a binary entity, it is instead gradual and that’s where there’s tricky grey areas. I just believe that the things that make a person worthy of compassion happen earlier than you do.
As for the 24 weeks, I believe that if an abortion is to occur, it should occur as early as possible, I don’t know when a human being is able to perceive pain but I would like to avoid that, if at all possible.
Wouldn’t you?
Like I said, it’s not religious, it’s biology. You think that it’s perfectly ethical to end the life of a human being if they are one millisecond away from being born. That human isn’t “her body” it’s just “in” her body. Different brain, different hands, different fingers and toes, different DNA. The difference isn’t “who’s body” it is, in my mind, it’s where that person is. At that point, anyway.
So it’s not the same as the difference between my body and your body even if we’re a millimeter away. It’s the same as in the living room it’s ethical to kill me and in the kitchen it’s not.
Like I said, and you don’t seem to get it… I’m not arguing against the right for people to have an abortion, whatever the reason, I’m arguing that in some cases it wouldn’t be an ethical thing to do. It would, however, be more ethical than keeping that baby.
I live in Canada, in a large city. I have seen anti-abortion billboards in the States, I have never seen anything like that here. I’ve never seen a pro-life rally, I’ve never seen a pro-life ad, and though there certainly are religious people here, they aren’t a politically significant lobby. I have never worried that I, or anyone I care about would need to have an abortion and not be allowed to have one.
That is why I’m comfortable pondering the nuanced ethics and moving on from what I believe is a knee-jerk reaction on your part. You claimed I have an “anti-abortion” argument. I don’t.
Let me put it this way.
There are things it is a dick thing to say. If someone says one of those things I might say “hey, it was a dick thing for you to say that”.
That is not the same as challenging free speech. There are things that are mean (and yes, unethical!) to say, but pointing out that they are unethical is not the same as saying a person shouldn’t have the right to say them.
@285:
I completely understand: you support the legal right to abortion but think it’s sometimes unethical. That’s what I meant by saying “anti-abortion” though I guess that was a confusing term for it. There isn’t a simple term for “thinks that abortion is unethical sometimes” vs. “thinks abortion is always ethical.”
I agree that personhood develops gradually over time. I still don’t see why birth is arbitrary: before that time, the fetus is within someone else’s ‘zone of control.’ Could you explain what you think makes a fetus worthy of compassion?
I understand that a fetus has different DNA, fingerprints, etc. I just don’t see why it matters. And yes, it is about where someone is: if you’re inside someone else, or dependent on someone else’s body, you don’t have the ethical right to stay alive because it’s trumped by the ethical right of someone else to control their body and what’s within. I don’t think it’s a knee-jerk reaction: I just think that the right to control what’s within your body trumps other issues (as well as a fetus being very very low on the personhood continuum). No one should be forced to be pregnant, which is why I’m opposed to the 24-week line.
If you want abortion to occur as early as possible, wouldn’t you support a 12-week line even more (as some European countries have)?
@278: I asked you first, sweetie.
I think this discussion pretty much proves, once and for all, that there are few things clearly in “black and white”.
Me, I’m the reigning Queen of Gray Area, with a little help from Miss Clairol.
@286
“if you’re inside someone else, or dependent on someone else’s body”
Those are two seperate things. That’s why I reference viability way back when and you said it didn’t matter. It appears to me that you’re conflating viability and location. Certainly right before birth that child is no longer dependant on the mother, but they are still IN her.
I think all things that are alive are worthy of compassion in some degree. And most certainly things capable of perceiving pain. For example, I think killing an animal to eat it is fine, but killing an animal just to see something die is… well.. unethical.
To your point, if all abortion is by definition ethical… what if someone chooses to have one to fufil some sort of sadistic bent? You may not perceive a fetus as alive or human but many people do, especially as birth nears. What if someone said “I want to terminate that pregnancy as late as possible because I want to feel powerful and it would give me a rush to end a human life”. Would that not disturb you?
As for where the line should be… I’m really not sure. Obviously I would prefer that women do it as early as possible, and before 12 weeks would certainly be nice.
Maybe I’m missing something but I see no reason that a women should be sitting around pregnant all that time with a child they don’t actually want?
Finally, auntie…
No, I’m female. And I actually kind of found that question to be offensive because I assume you were waiting for me to say I was male so you could launch into some sort of tongue clicking about how men just don’t understand women’s rights.
I care a lot about women’s rights, but I also respect other women enough to have high standards for their ethics and how they behave.
I assume you will now want to ask me if I’ve ever been pregnant or had children or an abortion and those are not questions I am comfortable answering a stranger on the internet about, so please hold off.
@288: Okay. Sorry. No offense intended. I also apologize for the “sweetie”. In retrospect, it does come off as condescending.
Actually I was just curious if you were male because I think your views could go either way, regardless if you have children or abortions or not. That’s rightfully your decision.
@289
I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt and figured the ‘sweetie’ was sass and not condescension. 😉
Yeah I’m not surprised when I come off as ‘male’ a lot of my personality traits are traditionally masculine.
@291 Hunter78: You nailed it! And they’re chortling over their Tea Party lackeys doing all the grunt work, too.
@288: Agreed, being inside someone and being dependent on someone’s body are two separate things. I’m not conflating the two; I’m saying in neither case does someone have the right to live (even if a fetus counts as ‘someone’). For instance, you can ethically choose not to donate an organ or blood even if someone dies because you don’t. The person who needs your blood could be said to be dependent on you, especially if you share a rare blood type, regardless of location.
I’m not sure why you say that a fetus is not dependent on the mother right before birth. It’s getting nutrients and oxygen from the mother: in what sense is it not dependent?
Your so-called ‘sadistic’ abortion wouldn’t disturb me at all. No more than it would disturb you if someone ‘sadistically’ plucked a hair off his arm because he wants power over those cells and follicles. Fetuses should only live as long as the mother wants. If it’s in your body, taking your resources, you have the absolute right to terminate — otherwise you’re forced into being pregnant.
Would it change your mind on abortion if we had a method that could be shown to be completely painless?
As far as the 12-week line: some women don’t even realize they’re pregnant till later than that. Some women don’t have the money for an abortion and need the time to get it or save it. Some women may have a major change in their lives — a breakup, death in the family, losing a job, a sick relative — and suddenly it no longer makes sense to have a kid.
(Those are the kind of arguments that most pro-choicers make, but they bother me a little because people shouldn’t need a good reason to control their body at any time, and it’s a little scary and disturbing to me to think that someone needs to justify their desire not to be pregnant anymore. Bans on sex-selective abortion are another example of someone not approving of women’s choices to control their bodies.)
Money… for abortion.
That is a somewhat absurd statement in my mind.
Abortion’s a medical procedure, and an essential one.
Okay first of all…. comparing a hair and a fetus is insane in my mind. A hair does not have it’s own brain and nervous system and ability to experience pain and suffering. That’s the salient point and for that reason: analogy fail.
Back to abortion policy… unless I’m getting my math wrong 12 weeks is three months. Thats quite a while to be pregnant and not notice.
I would prefer that women do it as soon after they find out as possible, but I would not be fully comfortable suggesting limits that force women to remain pregnant when they don’t want to be.
That’s the difference between seeing the law as a “tool” versus seeing the law as some sort of handbook of what I think is right or wrong.
Women should have the right to choose. I would never want to change that. But it is, in a sense, a licence to kill and therefore something that should be respected by the owners of those rights.
I’m going to go right ahead and assume that in all these scenarios you think the man’s opinion and feelings are 100% unimportant as well?
@mydriasis and Black Rose 24 weeks is the line for some states because that is when a fetus is considered viable. Before that, the lungs do not make type 1 surfactant and the baby cannot breathe. A fetus very existence is 100% dependent on the mother. Before that point, separation is not really a possibility.